Vegeta said:
You still didn't make it to the moon and you pretend to make it to a planet located 4 light years from Earth?

Perhaps the moon landing was a fluke by the Americans to trick and manipulate the Soviet Union. As a former citizen of that republic, I sometimes think so. However....
However...
Regardless of whether there's been a hoax or not, lacking faith in the eventual increase of our possibilities due to scientific discoveries is still somewhat silly. History does prove this.
There was a time when people thought that it was impossible for humankind to fly across the ocean, but that assumption has eventually been defeated by the invention of the airplanes that we use today.
There was a time when mobile phones and wireless communicators were science-fiction.
There was a time when touch-screen was still science-fiction.

Well, I honestly don't know what the real truth of the story is. But working towards something and having faith in it eventually happening (even if it happens during other generations ahead of us) is a very fulfilling and meaningful existence to lead.

Quast said:
12 people have ever stepped foot there and we haven't been back to land or orbit since 1972.

If that's the case then it instantly triggers suspicion that the reason why they aren't returning is because they found someone or something over there which has scared the shit out of them... The home of the Icon of Sin, perhaps? 0_o
And they are being extra silent about the discovery to prevent us from panicking about the vulnerability of our lives to the threat of this thing that they found over there...
If that's the case then perhaps they're doing the right thing by keeping it a secret. We'd rather live stress-free and not worry about impending doom. But on the other hand... We need to obtain technology which can enable our species to reallocate to some safer planets ASAP. ASAP! Before it gets too late.

Nah, it just costs a lot of money, and rovers are significantly (and I mean, EXTREMELY significantly) more cost efficient and useful. The truth is, until we have a reason to really go back to the moon in person (either for a resource that needs to be hand-mined, or simply as a political move to 'inspire' a populace) humans won't return there.

We have the technology currently to go to the only other 'somewhat livable' planet, Mars. Venus will incinerate flesh in an instant, Mercury is tricky because of temperature climates, and Jupiter is much further and has no solid surface we could land a human on (Some of its moons are viable though.) However, even with that technology, it would cost so much money to meet such a task that we, humans, would gain more scientific knowledge for the same price sending 15~ rovers--especially with workhorses such as the Curiosity rover.

That being said, there are huge obstacles still. The Saturn V rocket, used during Apollo, isn't produced anymore. The facilities that made the parts are no longer their. The equipment to make them is no longer there. Hell, a lot of people that knew how to make them with firsthand experience are no longer here. So, all of that would need to be replaced should we undertake such a mission to return to the moon.

With that in mind, our knowledge of the moon hasn't stopped growing. Check out the detailed mappings of the lunar reconnaissance orbiter for some cool pictures, and wikipedia for a quick rundown of some notable stuff. I think Sky & Telescope magazine actually put out a model globe recently that uses detailed bump-mapped prints of the moon, nifty if you're interested.

As for the topic at hand--I wrote up a long detailed post, but then Miss Sandy blew me and my power. Should have saved it. Anyways, the gist of it, is that this info is really cool and important in the sense that it confirms something that we long suspected to be there--planets orbiting just about every damn star, black hole, bigger mass object, etc out there. We really kind of knew they were out there, but having the actual proof and confirmation is such a huge step. Finding one in close proximity to us as Alpha Centauri is pretty cool as well, but I'd have been more surprised if one wasn't there, in all honesty.

Further, I had written a bit in detail, that basically amounted to the fact that it always tickles me when people talk about what it would take to get there, etc, currently. Interstellar travel is not feasible under current technology--and without a major physics breakthrough, it will likely never be feasible in a realistic timeframe. It's a sad and humbling possibility that the true fact of the universe is, we may never leave our star--and no species of life may ever leave theirs, unless there is a piece of the giant puzzle we've yet to discover. As it stands, discussing any sort of interstellar travel is a pipe dream. But that's fine, because our solar system is incredibly marvelous on its own.

eargosedown said:
That being said, there are huge obstacles still. The Saturn V rocket, used during Apollo, isn't produced anymore. The facilities that made the parts are no longer their. The equipment to make them is no longer there. Hell, a lot of people that knew how to make them with firsthand experience are no longer here. So, all of that would need to be replaced should we undertake such a mission to return to the moon.

Not to trivialise the work involved in building such a machine, but you're talking about moon-land-able rockets like they're some ancient technology whose workings we can only make assumptions about based on photographs and video footage. Surely NASA kept the design docs in a file cabinet somewhere?

Anyway, about reasons for going to the moon again: what about space tourism? Keeping things relative to what technology we currently have, I'm sure there's a lot of (very wealthy) people who would want to visit the moon. The ticket prices could cover the cost of the project and collect revenue, surely.

DoomUK said:
Anyway, about reasons for going to the moon again: what about space tourism? Keeping things relative to what technology we currently have, I'm sure there's a lot of (very wealthy) people who would want to visit the moon. The ticket prices could cover the cost of the project and collect revenue, surely.

You're looking at close to 2 billion dollars per flight, not including revenue. While there might be someone out there willing to pay that to go to the moon, I can't imagine there would be many more.

A reusable launch vehicle, if we had one, something like a "space" "shuttle" would certainly lower the costs. Not by much, but even then we would need a 10-15 year program to design and build one at who knows what cost, probably 300 billion or more.

Edit: After looking around apparently NASA has in the works a 2017 mission sending an unmanned flight to circumnavigate the moon.

DoomUK said:
Not to trivialise the work involved in building such a machine, but you're talking about moon-land-able rockets like they're some ancient technology whose workings we can only make assumptions about based on photographs and video footage. Surely NASA kept the design docs in a file cabinet somewhere?

Anyway, about reasons for going to the moon again: what about space tourism? Keeping things relative to what technology we currently have, I'm sure there's a lot of (very wealthy) people who would want to visit the moon. The ticket prices could cover the cost of the project and collect revenue, surely.

Oh, I'm sure they have some designs laying around, but the fact that we don't have the facilities or factories anymore to make the parts adds a huge overhead cost to the process.

As for tourism... not yet. Going to Low Earth Orbit is much different, because it doesn't have to navigate around the Van Allen Belt, whereas moon tours would. The price is just too high compared to current technology. Hopefully though, some breakthroughs in spaceflight (even space ladder/tethers) will help make space more commercially feasible, as rocketry is just so expensive and wasteful.

Long answer: While propulsion systems are clearly the most obvious and visible aspects of space travel and receive by far the most discussion, it is probably the most minor point to consider given that you can get wherever the hell you want to even at 'slow' velocities.

Creating self contained, self sufficient life-support systems however, is basically THE problem with space travel and we're not even close to solving that issue. We can't even do that here on earth let alone in space. And it's something that would need to be adressed and figured out even for a round trip to mars which would be about a 2 year mission with only maybe 5 or 6 individuals to consider. When people get to talking about gargantuan 'generational ark ships' or the like that contain hundreds or even thousands of people you are entering the realm of pure fantasy in so far as figuring out how to house, feed and clothe the people.

If human beings ever lay eyes on that planet, it will be a picture sent from an unmanned probe or rover send millenia ahead of time.

Long answer: While propulsion systems are clearly the most obvious and visible aspects of space travel and receive by far the most discussion, it is probably the most minor point to consider given that you can get wherever the hell you want to even at 'slow' velocities.

Sad really :S

If human beings ever lay eyes on that planet, it will be a picture sent from an unmanned probe or rover send millenia ahead of time.